Ok, that is interesting then, I'll take a look at the changeset and
see how you did that.
On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, the fix didn't change this behavior. The SingleThreadedPipelineExecuter
> is still pulling, while the multi threaded is pushing.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM, pb648174 <goo...@webpaul.net> wrote:
>
> > The other strange bit of IEnumerable behavior is that if you don't
> > iterate the rows passed in the Execute method to an operation, the
> > previous operations won't execute. This makes sense once you think
> > about how IEnumerable works, but from the context of making an
> > operation that does something not involving rows (as perhaps the last
> > operation to send an email or something) you can get some unexpected
> > results. I made a ProcessAndIgnoreAllInput(rows) { foreach(var row in
> > rows); } to get around this but maybe now I can get rid of it.
>
> > If you solved this problem by iterating the list no matter what and
> > making a copy I think you will have also fixed the above scenario,
> > just thought I would mention it.
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:30 pm, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Fixed in revision 2044.
>
> > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote:
> > > > +1
>
> > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Simone Busoli <
> > simone.bus...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >> If everyone's ok with it I can change the single threaded executer to
> > > >> avoid iterating the rows twice.
>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:19 AM, webpaul <goo...@webpaul.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>> No, I can't see why anyone would want that behavior, it can lead to
> > > >>> some unexpected results. If anything I would think the single
> > threaded
> > > >>> should be made to behave like the multi threaded one. I think if
> > there
> > > >>> was some reason for that behavior then an option defaulted to off
> > > >>> would be best.
>
> > > >>> On Feb 4, 11:21 am, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> > Yes, that sounds reasonable. Do you think it would be useful to
> > enhance
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> > threaded pipeline executer to make it iterable multiple times?
>
> > > >>> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:39 PM, webpaul <goo...@webpaul.net>
> > wrote:
> > > >>> > > When I need to do anything like that I just
> > > >>> > > first convert to a List<Row> rowList = new List<Row>(rows); which
> > > >>> > > safely interates it once and then I don't need to worry about
> > it.-
> > > >>> Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino Tools Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to rhino-tools-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rhino-tools-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
